I am in a different world - a higher level of appraisal - a new and more sophisticated standard. ....
I salute you for being special.
It is nothing more than descriptive fact. I am indeed working at a much different level. If you object to the veritical, higher vs lower terminalogy, that let's say rather I work in a very different "compartment."
I don't begrudge you your opinion of yourself
We are just scratching the surface. I am not in a hurry.
or what additional methods and techniques you use in your work - if you're still doing any appraisal work.
Well, I think that indeed you are.
USPAP doesn't add any restrictions to how much extra you put into your work.
You keep bringing up this ambigrous standard that really doesn't provide protocols. It doesn't provide much as a standard when two licensed appraisers can wind up with a 50% difference in values, get run through a two year legal process in the courts and come out relatively clean ( no action by the BREA). What the heck kind of standard is that? Oh, yea. It is all fluff - no meat.
There is no upper limit to what else you can do.
Are you an expert on "upper limits?" No. You only know what you use - what 99% of other appraisers use.
If you are having problems selling your methodology to the users of appraisals then those problems have nothing to do with the minimums in USPAP.
No, not at all. I had problems when I was at AMD in 1984-1987 selling the idea of abolishing cigarette smoke in the MIS building in Sunnyvale. I hit all the kinds of objections similar those on this forum. Nonsense stuff. It went on for years. I did not give up. Finally we abolished cigarette smoking not only in the MIS building - but all of AMD. And next thing you know it spread through the Silicon Valley, the SF Bay Area. - Yes you do find some cigarette smokers still around - and many are surely appraisers - which is one reason they are indpendant appraisers - they can do what they want like smoke, smoke, smoke. Of course since years, it has become very hard to find a place where you can smoke without getting beat up on, whether it is in a restaurant or an airplane. -- Even a good number of Indian Casino's have prohibited smoking.
It is the people who are hard headed, stubborn, and forceful, who make the real change. You can never expect anything other than that from me. But - I have to get other work done, so my objectives here are trying to get some thing done over a decade or more rather. than this year. It will all follow suit given time.
Render unto your clients and users that discretion which is theirs'.
Are you saying let the smokers smoke their ****?
My point is that if the discussion is about where the minimum standards should be reset for appraisal practice those standards have to be set at a point where they will always apply.
This is the foundation of the reason that I have always said, you need bright people, IQ's in the 140-150+ range, to write standards. Even then cross your fingers and hope for the best. Some fine-tuning will always be needed.
But, for example, you can write a protocol that says:
1. The recommended way to do Task X is according to such and such a flowchart with many if/and/or conditions.
2. Generally, if your situation is A, do X1, if B do X2, if C do X3, .....
3. If doing X2, then do it this way under such and such circumstances. ....
....
If none of the above situations applies to your current situation, then document the reasons, and then provide a new protocol that you have designed with support based on referenced material,to be reviewed and audited by others.
I could provide more elaborate discussion. But you should get the idea.
Not just under a limited set of circumstances.
Well, just like I said, protocols WILL indeed be subject to circumstances. But there should be protocols for all circumstances.
This is the reason USPAP doesn't include any instruction or technical specs on any particular approach to value or mode of analysis.
Nonsense. Engineering standards.
Easily. Unless all you have to work with are idiots.
There is no "the one" that we can incorporate into a minimum standard that will always be applicable across the board.
You are extremely narrow minded, unable to handle generalization or "circumstantiation" (my term).
By definition, if your preferred mode of analysis doesn't always work in every SFR assignment then it cannot be deemed a minimum standard for everyone to meet.
You can say at the beginning of your report that:
1. This report was completed in conformance with the following protocols:
a). For the SCA USPAP 2024.20.183.4
b). For the CA USPAP 2024.243.104.8
c). For the IA, USPAP 2024.52.66.8a
d) For the Final Value conclusion, USPAP 2024.1.60.8
Will will support your choice of specific protocols based on the SOW.
We can require the appraisers using that method to do so competently if/when using it but that's not the same thing as directly including the recipe in USPAP.
Well you need to put it somewhere. I would expect that USPAP will be abandonded and that the protocols will be handled at the regional or state level. Remember - AI roaring along. And that in itself necessitates a new modification to all standards.
Go to Cloud or ChatGPT USPAP and ask it: "Can you analyze this standard and report its logical errors , insufficient or ambiguous definitions, any need for clarification, and then suggest a new protocol that also reduces unnecessary duplication in its rules?" (Of course the actual details on specification for a new USPAP standard would be far more detailed and require a number of iterations to get right.)
Most of what we do in our work is user-driven and in excess of what's explicitly required in SR1/SR2.
Again, SR1 and SR2 are very high level, have faults. We need standards that guarantee fair appraisals, and as much objectivity as possible. USPAP, in its current state is a mess.
It's worshippers often compare it to the 1980 when there was no standard. Well, as someone recently told me:
"It's water under the bridge."
The bridges need to be repaired or in some cases torn down and rebuilt --- IN MORE WAYS THAN ONE.
